Caseflicks

Supreme Court of Iowa • 2000

Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc. v. Pelo

608 N.W.2d 20 | 2000 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 50

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Takeaway

In short, a person involuntarily hospitalized at a private facility may be required to pay the reasonable value of necessary mental-health services under quasi-contract, even without a voluntary agreement to treatment.

Background

After an argument with his wife, Russell Pelo left home, checked into a motel, telephoned his wife with threats of self-harm, and bought a shotgun. Police brought him to Ellsworth Municipal Hospital. A magistrate found probable cause to believe that Pelo was seriously mentally impaired and likely to injure himself, and ordered his emergency detention in the hospital’s psychiatric unit for examination and care.

Pelo initially refused to sign the hospital admission form authorizing release of information to his insurer and acknowledging responsibility for charges not covered by insurance. He later signed, but claimed he did so under duress after a nurse said the hospital could not ensure the safety or return of his belongings without his signature. He remained hospitalized from January 8 through January 13, 1995. Although a hospitalization referee found that Pelo had bipolar disorder and would benefit from treatment, the referee concluded that the statutory grounds for further involuntary hospitalization had not been proved and released him.

The hospital charged $2,775.79 for its services and assigned the account to Credit Bureau Enterprises for collection. In small claims court, Pelo admitted the hospitalization but denied agreeing to pay. The district associate judge held that Cerro Gordo County was not statutorily responsible because Ellsworth was a private rather than a state hospital, dismissed the claim against the county, and entered judgment against Pelo. On appeal, the district court judge affirmed, concluding both that Pelo’s signed form was an enforceable contract and, alternatively, that he was liable under quasi-contract. The Iowa Supreme Court granted discretionary review.

Issues

Issue #1

What standard of review applies to this appeal from a small claims judgment seeking payment on a hospital account?

Holding

The Court reviewed for correction of errors at law.

Reasoning

The action began as a suit to collect an account, which is a law action. On discretionary review of a small claims case, the applicable standard depends on the nature of the underlying action; therefore, the Court reviewed the district court judge’s ruling for legal error rather than conducting de novo review.

Issue #2

Whether Iowa’s mental-health statutes required Pelo’s county of legal settlement to pay for his involuntary hospitalization at a private hospital.

Holding

No. The statutes imposed county liability for care at state hospitals, but did not mandate county payment for treatment at a private hospital in these circumstances.

Reasoning

The Court explained that chapters 229 and 230 expressly address payment for some forms of hospitalization, particularly care at public or state hospitals. Ellsworth Municipal Hospital was a private hospital, however, and the statutes did not contain a comparable mandatory provision requiring Cerro Gordo County to pay for Pelo’s care there.

reasoning